Hi, On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 17:21 +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > Hi Artur, > > On 8/1/19 10:59, Artur Świgoń wrote: > > Hi Georgi, > > > > On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 11:05 +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > > > Hi Artur, > > > > > > On 7/23/19 15:20, Artur Świgoń wrote: > > > > This patch adds interconnect functionality to the exynos-bus devfreq > > > > driver. > > > > > > > > The SoC topology is a graph (or, more specifically, a tree) and most of > > > > its > > > > edges are taken from the devfreq parent-child hierarchy (cf. > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt). The previous > > > > patch adds missing edges to the DT (under the name 'parent'). Due to > > > > unspecified relative probing order, -EPROBE_DEFER may be propagated to > > > > guarantee that a child is probed before its parent. > > > > > > > > Each bus is now an interconnect provider and an interconnect node as > > > > well > > > > (cf. Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.rst), i.e. every bus > > > > registers > > > > itself as a node. Node IDs are not hardcoded but rather assigned at > > > > runtime, in probing order (subject to the above-mentioned exception > > > > regarding relative order). This approach allows for using this driver > > > > with > > > > various Exynos SoCs. > > > > > > I am not familiar with the Exynos bus topology, but it seems to me that > > > it's not > > > represented correctly. An interconnect provider with just a single node > > > (port) > > > is odd. I would expect that each provider consists of multiple master and > > > slave > > > nodes. This data would be used by a framework to understand what are the > > > links > > > and how the traffic flows between the IP blocks and through which buses. > > > > To summarize the exynos-bus topology[1] used by the devfreq driver: There > > are > > many data buses for data transfer in Samsung Exynos SoC. Every bus has its > > own > > clock. Buses often share power lines, in which case one of the buses on the > > power line is referred to as 'parent' (or as 'devfreq' in the DT). In the > > particular case of Exynos4412[1][2], the topology can be expressed as > > follows: > > > > bus_dmc > > -- bus_acp > > -- bus_c2c > > > > bus_leftbus > > -- bus_rightbus > > -- bus_display > > -- bus_fsys > > -- bus_peri > > -- bus_mfc > > > > Where bus_dmc and bus_leftbus probably could be referred to as masters, and > > the > > following indented nodes as slaves. Patch 08/11 of this RFC additionally > > adds > > the following to the DT: > > > > bus_dmc > > -- bus_leftbus > > > > Which makes the topology a valid tree. > > > > The exynos-bus concept in devfreq[3] is designed in such a way that every > > bus is > > probed separately as a platform device, and is a largely independent entity. > > > > This RFC proposes an extension to the existing devfreq driver that basically > > provides a simple QoS to ensure minimum clock frequency for selected buses > > (possibly overriding devfreq governor calculations) using the interconnect > > framework. > > > > The hierarchy is modelled in such a way that every bus is an interconnect > > node. > > On the other hand, what is considered an interconnect provider here is quite > > arbitrary, but for the reasons mentioned in the above paragraph, this RFC > > assumes that every bus is a provider of itself as a node. Using an > > alternative > > IIUC, in case we want to transfer data between the display and the memory > controller, the path would look like this: > > display --> bus_display --> bus_leftbus --> bus_dmc --> memory > > But the bus_display for example would have not one, but two nodes (ports), > right? One representing the link to the display controller and another one > representing the link to bus_leftbus? So i think that all the buses should > have at least two nodes, to represent each end of the wire. I do not think we really need that for our simple tree hierarchy. Of course, I can split every tree node into two nodes/ports (e.g., 'in' for children and 'out' for parent), but neither 'display' nor 'memory' from your diagram above are registered with the interconnect framework (only buses are). The devfreq devices used in the driver are virtual anyway. > > singleton provider approach was deemed more complicated since the 'dev' > > field in > > 'struct icc_provider' has to be set to something meaningful and we are tied > > to > > the 'samsung,exynos-bus' compatible string in the driver (and multiple > > instances > > of exynos-bus probed in indeterminate relative order). > > > > Sure, the rest makes sense to me. > > Thanks, > Georgi Regards, -- Artur Świgoń Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
